Tag: Road Traffic

Fundo de Garantia Automovel v Juliana: ECJ 4 Sep 2018

Compulsory Insurance v Civil Liability In Respect of The Use of Motor Vehicles – Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles – Directive 72/166/EEC – Article 3(1) – Second Directive 84/5/EEC – Article 1(4) – Obligation to take out a contract of insurance – Vehicle parked on private land – Right of the compensation body to bring an action against the owner of the uninsured vehicle

Citations:

C-80/17, [2018] EUECJ C-80/17, ECLI:EU:C:2018:661

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Road Traffic

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.621627

Director of Public Prosecutions v Manchester and Salford Magistrates’ Court: Admn 7 Jul 2017

Prosecutions brought against motorists in unconnected circumstances for driving a motor vehicle on a road or other public place after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion if it in their respective breath exceeded the prescribed limit, contrary to s. 5 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The same defence solicitors have appeared and, in both cases, defence statements have been served which deny the consumption of sufficient alcohol to give rise to a positive reading and challenge the reliability of the Lion Intoxilyzer device used in the procedure. Pursuant to these statements, applications have been made under s. 8 of the 1996 Act for comprehensive documentation concerning the relevant device, relying on expert evidence to the effect that there must have been some defect in the device: the evidence proceeds on the unstated premise that what is said by each of the motorists as to their alcohol consumption is accurate.

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 3719 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice, Road Traffic

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.619950

Gatenby, Regina (on Application of) v Newton Ayecliffe Magistrates’ Court: Admn 1 Dec 2017

Challenge to the decision of the Magistrates to endorse the driving licence of the claimant with 10 penalty points following his plea of guilty to an offence of failing to provide a specimen of breath for analysis contrary to Section 7, subsection 6, of the Road Traffic Act.

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 3772 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Road Traffic

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.619957

Farah v Abdullahi and Others: QBD 20 Apr 2018

The claimant had been injured in a road accident. The driver of the vehicle was unknown, but the insurer was known. The defendant now applied for the claim to be struck out on the basis that it had been free to avoid the policy ab initio for non-disclosure.
Held: The order stood: ‘the principles set out in Cameron are engaged and that the claimant is prima facie entitled to proceed against the third defendant as an unnamed party. It seems to me that it would be both efficacious and consistent with the overriding objective to allow the claim to go forward in that way. The entitlement of a claimant to proceed against an unnamed driver should not depend on the section 151 liability of the insurer being incontrovertibly established. That would be to draw a somewhat arbitrary distinction between cases where the claimant’s rights rested on section 151 and cases where his rights rested on the Uninsured Drivers’ Agreement / Article 75 (or some combination of the two). It would be arbitrary because both routes offer a remedy of value and both form part of an overall scheme intended to meet the UK’s obligations under the Motor Insurance Directives. Furthermore, given the time limit in section 152(2) and given also the fact that the victim of a road accident cannot know if there are matters that might lead to the avoidance of the insurance covering the vehicle which injured him, at the point of issue and/or service of the Claim Form neither he nor the court can be confident that section 151 will ultimately be engaged.’

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 738 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Road Traffic

Updated: 13 April 2022; Ref: scu.609110

Dymond v Pearce: CA 13 Jan 1972

A motorcyclist crashed into the rear of a lorry stationary on the carriageway. The plaintff said that the parking of the lorry was a nuisance, and that if it had not been so parked, there would have been no accident.
Held: The appeal failed. The accident was due wholly to the negligence of the motorcyclist. ‘sine qua non is not an all-sufficient basis for establishing liability.’ In criminal law at least nuisance must be actual as opposed to potential.

Judges:

Sachs LJ, Edmund Davies LJ, Stephenson LJ

Citations:

[1972] 1 All ER 1142, [1972] EWCA Civ 7, [1972] 2 WLR 633, [1972] 1 QB 496, [1972] RTR 169

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Morton v Wheeler CA 31-Jan-1956
Sharp spikes by the side of a highway were said to be a nuisance. Lord Denning MR said: ‘As all lawyers know, the tort of public nuisance is a curious mixture. It covers a multitude of sins. We are concerned to-day with only one of them, namely, a . .
Cited – Maitland v Raisbeck CA 1944
Lord Greene MR said: ‘Every person . . has a right to use the highway and, if something happens to him which in fact causes an obstruction to the highway but is in no way referable to his fault, it is quite impossible, in my view, to say that ipso . .
Cited – Farrel v Mowlem 1954
The defendant had without justification laid a pipe across a pavement and the plaintiff tripped over it and was injured.
Held: The defendant was liable in nuisance. Devlin J said, as to the pipe: ‘No doubt it is a comparatively harmless sort . .
Cited – Read v J Lyons and Co Ltd HL 1946
The plaintiff was employed by the Ministry of Defence, inspecting a weapons factory. A shell exploded injuring her. No negligence was alleged. The company worked as agent for the ministry.
Held: The respondents were not liable, since there had . .
Cited – Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Miller Steamship Co Pty (The Wagon Mound) (No 2) PC 25-May-1966
(New South Wales) When considering the need to take steps to avoid injury, the court looked to the nature of defendant’s activity. There was no social value or cost saving in this defendant’s activity. ‘In the present case there was no justification . .
Cited – Parish v Judd 1960
A lorry and a car it was towing stopped, obstructing the highway. The plaintiff crashed into them, and claimed that they constituted a nuisance. The vehicles had only just stopped, and the driver was checking that all was well with the car. The . .
Cited – Trevetts v Lee CA 1955
Lord Evershed MR said: ‘The law as regards obstruction to highways is conveniently stated in a passage in Salmond on Torts, 13th edition: ‘A nuisance to a highway consists either in obstructing it or in rendering it dangerous’. Then a numbed of . .
Cited – Morton v Weaver CA 31-Jan-1956
The court distinguished between obstructions of a highway and dangers created on it. Lord Denning MR asked: ‘How are we to determine whether a state of affairs in or near a highway is a danger?’ and answered ‘This depends, I think, on whether injury . .

Cited by:

Cited – Rouse v Squires CA 22-Mar-1973
. .
Cited – Houghton v Stannard QBD 29-Oct-2003
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Road Traffic, Nuisance

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.188834

Director of Public Prosecutions v Spicer: Admn 13 Mar 1997

The defendant had successfully argued no case to answer, on a charge of driving without due care. The prosecutor appealed by way of case stated. From the detailed notes available to the court, it was clear that there was evidence before them to put the defendant to an answer. Case remitted.

Citations:

[1997] EWHC Admin 259

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Galbraith CCA 1981
Rejection of Submission of No Case to Answer
The defendant had faced a charge of affray. The court having rejected his submission of having no case to answer, he had made an exculpatory statement from the dock. He appealed against his conviction.
Held: Lord Lane LCJ said: ‘How then . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.137204

Regina v Pydar Justices Ex Parte Foster: QBD 23 May 1995

There was a case to answer on an OPL charge despite the computer readout not being handed to Justices. It was in evidence. Evidence referred to but not challenged by the defendant can be relied upon by Justices in making their decision. The court commented on a suggestion that a defending advocate was entitled to ‘keep his powder dry’: ‘Mr Burkett [who was the applicant] submitted that the solicitor concerned was entitled to sit quiet and not alert the justices to the error the defendant claims existed on the form, but make a submission about it to them later at a time of his choosing. I profoundly disagree with this thoroughly bad submission. Without any doubt whatsoever, it is the duty of a defending advocate properly to lay the ground for a submission, either by cross-examination or, if appropriate, by calling evidence.’

Judges:

Curtis J

Citations:

Times 23-May-1995, Ind Summary 12-Jun-1995, [1995] 160 JP 87

Cited by:

Cited – Christopher James Jolly v Director of Public Prosections Admn 31-Mar-2000
At trial in the magistrates court, the prosecution had failed to bring evidence that the computer used to analyse the defendant’s breath alcohol was in proper working condition. The defendant submitted no case to answer, and the magistrates allowed . .
Cited – Antonio Leeson v Haringey Justices and Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 26-Jul-1999
The prosecutor on a charge of driving with excess alcohol had failed to adduce evidence as to the calibration of the intoximeter. The magistrates allowed him to re-open his case. The defendant appealed.
Held: The appeal was dismissed: ‘If the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.87578

Regina v Burton Upon Trent Magistrates Court Ex Parte Woolley: QBD 17 Nov 1994

An injured suspect should still be asked why a blood specimen should not to be taken. A failure to follow the statutory procedure to request a blood sample in hospital had misled the driver.

Citations:

Independent 27-Jan-1995, Independent 29-Dec-1994, Times 17-Nov-1994

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988 5(1)(a)

Road Traffic

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.86259

Regina v Wiggins: CACD 23 Jun 2000

The court should not normally order that a passenger who had been convicted of aggravated taking without consent should also be subject to a extended driving test after the conclusion of the ban in the same way that a driver might.

Citations:

Times 23-Jun-2000

Statutes:

Theft Act 1968

Criminal Sentencing, Road Traffic

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85613

Regina v Swansea City and Council, Ex Parte Davies: QBD 7 Jul 2000

A hackney council vehicle licence holder had sufficient locus standi as a person aggrieved to appeal against a condition sought to be imposed by the local authority on the licensing of private hire vehicle licenses. Accordingly the Magistrates should hear his complaint and objection. The statute was not narrowly drafted so as to exclude the applicant, although it was not limitless.

Citations:

Times 07-Jul-2000

Statutes:

Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 48

Licensing, Road Traffic, Local Government

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85579

Regina v Kensington and Chelsea London Borough Council, Ex Parte Eminian: QBD 17 Aug 2000

When a householder applied for leave to construct a vehicular crossing over a footway to the carriageway, the highway authority was entitled to consider the effect such a way would have on the controlled parking zone, and could go beyond the elements listed in the section. Here the grant of the right would have reduced the number of parking spaces available within the zone, and this was enough reason to refuse consent.

Citations:

Times 17-Aug-2000

Statutes:

Highways Act 1980 184(1)

Planning, Road Traffic

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85342

Lavis v Kent County Council: QBD 18 Feb 1992

The plaintiff had received serious injuries whilst riding his motor cycle at a road junction for which the defendants were responsible. He alleged that they were liable to him for failing to ensure that proper warning signs were placed at the approach to the junction. The defendants were empowered to place such signs, but not under a duty to do so. They applied to strike out the plaintiff’s claim as disclosing no cause of action.
Held: A Local Authority had a discretion not to erect a particular road sign, but the decision was to be made according to the standards of a competent road engineer. ‘In my judgment it is perfectly clear that the duty imposed is not capable of covering the erection of traffic signs, and nothing more need be said about that particular provision’.

Citations:

Times 24-Nov-1994, (1992) 90 LGR 416, [1993] CLY 2949

Cited by:

Applied – Gorringe v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council CA 2-May-2002
The claimant sought damages, alleging that an accident occurred as a result of the defendant highway authority’s negligence in failing to mark the road properly. A ‘Slow’ sign had become faded and had not been maintained.
Held: The judge had . .
Cited – Walker v Northumberland County Council QBD 16-Nov-1994
The plaintiff was a manager within the social services department. He suffered a mental breakdown in 1986, and had four months off work. His employers had refused to provide the increased support he requested. He had returned to work, but again, did . .
Cited – Gorringe v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council HL 1-Apr-2004
Statutory Duty Not Extended by Common Law
The claimant sought damages after a road accident. The driver came over the crest of a hill and hit a bus. The road was not marked with any warning as to the need to slow down.
Held: The claim failed. The duty could not be extended to include . .
Cited – Hertfordshire Police v Van Colle; Smith v Chief Constable of Sussex Police HL 30-Jul-2008
Police Obligations to Witnesses is Limited
A prosecution witness was murdered by the accused shortly before his trial. The parents of the deceased alleged that the failure of the police to protect their son was a breach of article 2.
Held: The House was asked ‘If the police are alerted . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Local Government, Road Traffic

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.82958

Kingston Upon Hull City Council v Wilson: QBD 29 Jun 1995

The grant to an individual of a hackney licence in one local authority, does not stop the grant of a similar licence elsewhere. Though the court applied the ABC case, Buxton J rejected an argument that a vehicle was not a private hire vehicle for the purposes of section 46(1)(b) as it was a ‘hackney carriage’ and thus fell outside the definition of ‘private hire vehicle’ in section 80: ‘That amounts to saying that once the vehicle is licensed anywhere as a hackney carriage, that precludes the application, in respect of that vehicle, of any part of Section 46 of this act anywhere else in this country. Thus, if Mr. Wilson had driven his vehicle in other respects not in conformity with Section 46 in Truro or Newcastle Upon Tyne, the fact that it had been licensed in Beverley as a hackney carriage would preclude the application, by any local authority, of section 46(2) . . for my part, I cannot accept that this Act intends it to be the case that in every case where a hackney carriage vehicle exists it follows thereafter that the vehicle so licensed cannot be susceptible to the rules applying to private hire vehicles . . it cannot, in my view, be the case that simply to licence a vehicle as a hackney carriage thereby makes that vehicle a hackney carriage for all time, even if it is functioning as a private hire vehicle. In my judgment, therefore, it is not enough that a hackney carriage licence exists to establish that this vehicle was a hackney carriage as that term is used in the definition of a ‘private hire vehicle’ in section 80 of the 1976 Act.’

Judges:

Buxton J

Citations:

Times 25-Jul-1995, CO 1249-95

Statutes:

Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976

Citing:

Applied – Britain v ABC Cabs (Camberley) Ltd QBD 1981
A hackney carriage had been booked, in the district where it was licensed, to pick up a fare in another district. The prosecutor said that when and where the fare was picked up the hackney carriage had no relevant private hire licence and no . .

Cited by:

Cited – Newcastle City Council, Regina (on the Application of) v Berwick-Upon-Tweed Borough Council and others Admn 5-Nov-2008
The applicant council complained that the respondent council was issuing a disproportionately high number of taxi licences, believing that it should only refuse a licence where the driver appeared to be unfit.
Held: The purpose of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Licensing, Road Traffic

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.82795

Jones v Director of Public Prosecutions: QBD 20 Oct 2000

Where magistrates considered an offence for which a driving ban was discretionary, they were entitled at that stage to take account of the driving record, even though they knew they would have to take that same record into account when considering a totting up ban. There was no double jeopardy, since the two systems considered different aspects of the offence, the speed driven on this occasion, and the repetition creating a pattern of behaviour. The two systems were not mutually exclusive, or alternatives.

Citations:

Gazette 02-Nov-2000, Times 20-Oct-2000

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1972

Cited by:

Cited – Flegg v Justices of the Peace for the New Forest Local Justice Area Sitting at Lyndhurst Admn 21-Feb-2006
The defendant sought judicial review of the refusal by the magistrates to state a case. He was convicted for failing to identify the driver of a motor cycle of which he was a registered keeper which had been caught by a speed camera. Either of two . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing, Road Traffic

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.82599

Jolley v Director of Public Prosecutions: QBD 5 May 2000

In a trial on a charge of driving with excess alcohol, the prosecutor failed to bring evidence that the computer involved had been working correctly. This was pointed out by the defendant at the close of his case, and the magistrate allowed the prosecutor to bring that evidence. The appeal failed. The court now has a clear general discretion to admit evidence after a case has been closed but before retiring. When using that discretion the justices must test what prejudice might be caused, but this is no longer an exceptional cases only discretion.

Citations:

Gazette 05-May-2000

Criminal Evidence, Road Traffic, Magistrates

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.82573

Commission v Germany -C-668/16: ECJ 11 Apr 2018

Approximation of Laws – Opinion – Failure of a Member State to fulfill obligations – Directive 2007/46 / EC – Liability of national authorities – Measures relating to the conformity of vehicles with technical requirements – Balancing the conformity gap and safety risks – Obligations of the manufacturer – Penalties – Directive 2006/40 / EC – Limit on emissions from air-conditioning systems of motor vehicles – Circumvention of the Directive

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2018:230, [2018] EUECJ C-668/16 – O

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 2007/46/EC

Jurisdiction:

European

Road Traffic, Environment

Updated: 07 April 2022; Ref: scu.608633

Seddon v The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA): QBD 21 Feb 2018

Preliminary issue of law, as to whether the Defendant, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA), an executive agency of the Department for Transport, owes a duty of care to the Claimant, Mr Seddon, as to its listing as having the benefit of the ‘historic car’ taxation clssification.

Judges:

Justine Thornton QC

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 312 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Road Traffic

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.605805

Miller v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 15 Feb 2018

Appeal by way of case stated from a pre-trial ruling of the Black Country Magistrates’ Court in respect of an information preferred against the Appellant for failing to provide a specimen of blood in breach of section 7 of the 1988 Act, and not to exercise its discretion under section 78 of the 1984 Act to exclude evidence of the drug drive procedure at Oldbury Police Station that led to the charge being made.

Judges:

Hickinbottom LJ, Dove J

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 262 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988 7, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 78

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Road Traffic

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.605608

Gray v The Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis: CA 1 Dec 2016

Police had seized the claimant’s car on the basis that it was not insured. The claimant now appealed against rejection of her claim for damages, saying that it had in fact been insured.

Judges:

MacFarlane, Davis LJJ

Citations:

[2016] EWCA Civ 1360

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Police, Road Traffic

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.592415

Director of Public Prosecutions v Camp: Admn 15 Dec 2017

The court was asked whether, at least in the particular circumstances of the case, self-induced intoxication could properly amount to a ‘reasonable excuse’ for failing to provide a specimen of breath for analysis, for the purposes of an alleged offence under section 7(6) of the 1988 Act.
Held: In these particular xircumstances, no.

Judges:

Lindblom LJ, Edis J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 3119 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988 7(8)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Road Traffic, Crime

Updated: 03 April 2022; Ref: scu.602583

Rostron v Guildford Borough Council: Admn 5 Dec 2017

Claim for judicial review of the decision of Guildford Borough Council to fix for 2016-2017 the maximum fares that may be charged for the hire of hackney carriages within the Borough.

Judges:

John Howell QC

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 3141 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Road Traffic, Local Government

Updated: 02 April 2022; Ref: scu.601443

Select Car Rentals (North West) Ltd v Esure Services Ltd: QBD 19 Jun 2017

The court considered the extent to which credit hire companies are potentially vulnerable to adverse costs orders in litigation to which they are not a party in the context of the settlement of road traffic accidents.

Judges:

Turner J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 1434 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs, Road Traffic

Updated: 28 March 2022; Ref: scu.588190

Gordon v Thorpe: QBD 1986

The defendant provided two specimens of breath through an intoximeter 3000. Though the machine appeared to be working otherwise properly, the two readings were wider apart than usual.
Held: Each reading was still in excess of the maximum, and expert evidence was to the effect that the blood alcohol level exceeded the maximum. The prosecutor’s appeal succeeded.

Citations:

[1986] RTR 358

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1972 6(1) 8(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Hussain v the Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 19-Mar-2008
Appeal by case stated – conviction for failing to provide specimen of breath. Machine at one station had failed on two occasions – defendant taken to second station and re-tested. Whether third test request lawful.
Held: In completing the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 28 March 2022; Ref: scu.267733

Lietuvos Respublikos Transporto priemoniu draudiku biuras v Gintaras Dockevicius, Jurgita Dockeviciene: ECJ 15 Jun 2017

ECJ (Insurance Against Civil Liability In Respect of Motor Vehicles : Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Insurance against civil liability in respect of motor vehicles – Accident occurring in 2006 between vehicles normally based in different Member States – Internal Regulations of the Council of Bureaux of national insurers of the Member States – Lack of jurisdiction of the Court – Directive 2009/103/EC – Not applicable ratione temporis – Directives 72/166/EEC, 84/5/EEC and 2000/26/EC – Not applicable ratione materiae – Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Inapplicability – Failure to implement EU law

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2017:463, [2017] EUECJ C-587/15

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Road Traffic, Human Rights

Updated: 27 March 2022; Ref: scu.588285

U C-420/15: ECJ 31 May 2017

(Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 45 TFEU – Freedom of movement for workers – Obligation to register a vehicle owned by a person resident in Belgium and intended for use in Italy

Citations:

C-420/15, [2017] EUECJ C-420/15, ECLI:EU:C:2017:408

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Road Traffic, Employment

Updated: 26 March 2022; Ref: scu.584353

Oldham Borough Council v Sajjad: Admn 19 Dec 2016

The appeal is brought by the appellant against the decision of the Justices that the respondent was not guilty of the offence of using a motor vehicle on a road without there being in force a valid policy of insurance, contrary to section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

Judges:

McCombe LJ, Kerr J

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 3597 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988 143

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Road Traffic

Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.581948

Elson v Stilgoe: CA 30 Mar 2017

Appeal from dismissal of claim for personal injuries in road traffic accident.
Held: The appeal failed: ‘the effect of the judge’s findings is that the claimant was not on the defendant’s side of the road for any length time sufficient for him to be observed by the defendant in a way which required him to take some evasive action. The judge’s findings present a picture of a defendant driving properly, confronted at the last moment by a claimant who had made a decision to veer into his path without good reason for doing so. The clear implication of findings made by the judge was that in the circumstances there was no reasonable ground for asserting that the driver should have taken account of the possibility of a sudden veering into his path without good reason by the claimant. The judge’s conclusions appear to me to show that the sole cause of the accident was the claimant’s actions rather than any action or inaction of the defendant.’

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 193

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Negligence, Road Traffic

Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.581337

Ramwade Ltd v W J Emson and Co Ltd: CA 1987

The plaintiffs had been obliged to hire vehicles to perform the work carried out by their skip lorry which had been damaged beyond repair in a road accident. Their insurance brokers had, contrary to instructions, failed to procure a comprehensive insurance policy, and the claimants could not afford to replace it by buying another skip lorry.
Held: The court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the damage consisting in the hire of the vehicles flowed from the defendants’ failure to provide them with a comprehensive insurance policy. One of the reasons which he gave for reaching this conclusion was that it flowed from the impecuniosity of the plaintiffs which rendered them unable to afford a substitute vehicle, adding that ‘if that is the true cause the hire charges are irrecoverable on the principles laid down in The Liesbosch.’

Judges:

Parker LJ

Citations:

[1987] RTR 72

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Followed – Liesbosch Dredger (Owners of) v Owners of SS Edison, The Liesbosch HL 28-Feb-1933
The ship Edison fouled the moorings of the Liesbosch resulting in the total loss of the dredger when it sank. It had been engaged on work in the harbour under contract with the harbour board. All the owners’ liquid resources were engaged in the . .

Cited by:

Cited – Lagden v O’Connor HL 4-Dec-2003
The parties had been involved in a road traffic accident. The defendant drove into the claimant’s parked car. The claimant was unable to afford to hire a car pending repairs being completed, and arranged to hire a car on credit. He now sought . .
Cited – Alcoa Minerals of Jamaica Inc v Herbert Broderick PC 20-Mar-2000
(Jamaica) Damage had been caused to the claimant’s property, but, because of his lack of funds, he was dependent upon the receipt of the damages to carry out the works of repair necessary. By the time the matter came to trial, inflation meant that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Damages

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.188646

Regina v Stacey: CA 1982

The defendant had been arrested for driving whilst unfit through drink. He was warned three hours later that he might be prosecuted for reckless driving. In fact he was not charged with any offence relating to drink. When tried for reckless driving he argued no case to answer because he had not been warned ‘at the time the offence was committed’ within the meaning of the section.
Held: The Court applied Bolkis. The decision was one for the judge. As he had arrived at the only appropriate answer on the facts the appeal was dismissed. Woolf J said that there was no authority on all fours but added: ‘. . it does appear to this court that the question is one which is much more suited to a decision by the judge than by a jury. It would be very unsatisfactory if one were to get a situation where one jury would come to one conclusion and another jury would come to another conclusion when exactly the same direction in law was given to them. It is therefore some comfort to find that whereas this point has not been considered on S179(4) . . ..(it) was in Rex v Bolkis [1932] 24 Cr App R 19 . . This court, in so far as the decision deals with the proper interpretation of S179(4) is bound by the decision in Rex v Bolkis. Quite clearly, if the court came to the conclusion that the word ‘court’ in subsection 4 referred to the judge, then that is a very real indication as to the proper interpretation of subsection (2).
The position is that in view of the decision in Rex v Bolkis . . . this court must take the view that the word ‘court’ in subsection (4) refers to the judge. Accordingly, when an issue under subsection (4) is raised before the court, the judge will be the person who determines the issue. It would lead to absurd results if a judge had to determine that issue but a jury had to determine an issue under subsection (2). Quite clearly, under subsection (4) the court is going to determine questions of fact as well as of law, and if the court, in the form of the judge has to determine the facts on subsection (4), it is only sensible and desirable that the judge should determine an issue under subsection (2).’

Judges:

Woolf J

Citations:

[1982] RTR 20

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1972 179(2)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Rex v Bolkis CCA 1932
The defendant complained that a jury had not been asked a question of fact, namely whether his name and address could not be discovered withut due diligence. The section had a proviso that failure to comply with the section was not a bar to . .

Cited by:

Cited – Currie, Regina v CACD 26-Apr-2007
The defendant appealed his conviction for dangerous driving. The failure of the police to serve him with a notice of intended prosecution invalidated the conviction. The police replied that there was no need for such a notice because there had been . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.251522

Camden London Borough Council v Humphreys and Another: CA 26 Jan 2017

The Council appealed against an order rejecting its penalty charge imposed on the respondent. He had lawfully parked his mopend in a parking bay, but the bay was later suspended, and he was ticketed.

Judges:

McCombe, Beatson, Briggs LJJ

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 24

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Road Traffic

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.573606

Pumbien v Vines: QBD 14 Jun 1995

A car on left on the road is used for MOT and insurance purposes even though it might be immobilized.

Times 14-Jun-1995, [1996] RTR 37
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – R and S Pilling (T/A Phoenix Engineering) v UK Insurance Ltd SC 27-Mar-2019
The driver’s car failed its MOT., He took it to private premises to repair. In those repairs, inflammable materials ignited and the fire spread those premises and adjoining third party premises. The premise’ insurers paid the owners of both and . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 23 January 2022; Ref: scu.85081

UK Insurance Ltd v Rands Pilling (T/A Phoenix Engineering): CA 12 Apr 2017

Sir Terence Etherton MR, Beatson, Henderson LJJ
[2017] EWCA Civ 259, [2017] WLR(D) 286, [2017] 4 All ER 199, [2017] QB 1357, [2017] 3 WLR 450, [2017] Lloyd’s Rep IR 463, [2017] RTR 25
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – UK Insurance Ltd v Holden QBD 2017
The car owner was repairing his car, but his negligence caused a fire which extended to a neighbour’s property. The insurance companies sought declarations as to liability under his road traffic insurance policy. . .

Cited by:
Appeal from (CA) – R and S Pilling (T/A Phoenix Engineering) v UK Insurance Ltd SC 27-Mar-2019
The driver’s car failed its MOT., He took it to private premises to repair. In those repairs, inflammable materials ignited and the fire spread those premises and adjoining third party premises. The premise’ insurers paid the owners of both and . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Insurance

Updated: 23 January 2022; Ref: scu.582101

RoadPeace v Secretary of State for Transport: Admn 7 Nov 2017

RoadPeace challenged certain legislation, as to compulsory insurance for motor vehicles, and for payment of compensation for personal injury and damages caused by uninsured driver, saying that it failed properly to implement European law.
Held: Ouseley J recorded and accepted the view of the Secretary of State for Transport and the Motor Insurers’ Bureau that section 145(3)(a) could not be read down and that there required to be amending legislation.

Ouseley J
[2017] EWHC 2725 (Admin), [2017] WLR(D) 736
Bailii, WLRD
Road Traffic Act 1988 145 151 153(3), Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 1(4), European Communities (Rights Against Insurers) Regulations 2002, Parliament and Council Directive 2009/103/EC
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – R and S Pilling (T/A Phoenix Engineering) v UK Insurance Ltd SC 27-Mar-2019
The driver’s car failed its MOT., He took it to private premises to repair. In those repairs, inflammable materials ignited and the fire spread those premises and adjoining third party premises. The premise’ insurers paid the owners of both and . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Personal Injury, Road Traffic, Insurance

Updated: 23 January 2022; Ref: scu.599418

Siegel v The Procurator Fiscal, Lerwick: ScSf 26 Jul 2016

The question in this case is whether or not special reasons exist for not endorsing Mr Siegel’s licence with penalty points for the offence of using a motor vehicle without there being in force a valid policy of insurance to cover that use, in contravention of section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

[2016] ScotSC 49
Bailii
Road Traffic Act 1988 143

Scotland, Road Traffic

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.568563

Burns v Currell: 1963

The defendant was accused of offences related to the driving on a public road a mechanically propelled vehicle, a Go-Kart.
Held: In fact it was not a motor vehicle within the statutory definition. The Court set out the test to be applied in deciding whether a particular vehicle was intended for use on roads for the purposes of the statutory definition.
Lord Parker CJ said: ‘Thus, in the ordinary case, it seems to me that there will be little difficulty in saying whether a particular vehicle is a motor vehicle or not. But to define exactly the meaning of the words ‘intended or adapted’ is by no means easy. For my part, I think that the expression ‘intended’, to take that word first, does not mean ‘intended by the user of the vehicle either at the moment of the alleged offence or for the future’. I do not think that it means the intention of the manufacturer or the wholesaler or the retailer; and it may be, as Salmon J said in Daley v Hargreaves, that it is not referring to the intention as such of any particular purpose.’
Salmon J. suggested that the word ‘intended’ might be paraphrased as ‘suitable or apt’. It may be merely a difference of wording, but I prefer to make the test whether a reasonable person looking at the vehicle would say that one of its users would be a road user.
In deciding that question, the reasonable man would not, as I conceive, have to envisage what some man losing his senses would do with a vehicle; nor an isolated user or a user in an emergency. The real question is: Is some general use on the roads contemplated as one of the users? Approaching the matter in that way, at the end of the case the justices would have to ask themselves: has it been proved beyond a reasonable doubt that any reasonable person looking at the Go-Kart would say that one of its uses would be a use on the road?’ and ‘I prefer to make the test whether a reasonable person looking at the vehicle would say that one of its users [uses] would be a road user. In deciding that question, the reasonable man would not, as I conceive, have to envisage what some man losing his senses would do with a vehicle; nor an isolated user or a user in an emergency. The real question is: Is some general use on the roads contemplated as one of the users?’

Lord Parker CJ, Ashworth, Winn JJ
[1963] 2 All ER 297, [1963] 2 QB 433
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Daley v Hargreaves 1961
The court considered what it was for a vehicle to be intended or adapted for use as a motor vehicle.
Held: The phrase did not refer to the intention as such of any particular purpose. Salmon J suggested that the word ‘intended’ might be . .

Cited by:
Applied – Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary v Fleming QBD 1987
The defendant was stopped pushing a motor-cycle along the road. It had been adapted for scrambling, and the registration plates lights and speedometer had been removed. He argued that it was no longer a motor vehicle ‘adapted or intended for use on . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Saddington; Chief Constable of the North Yorkshire Police v Michael Saddington Admn 1-Nov-2000
A motorised scooter of the type known as a ‘Go-Ped’ was a motor vehicle within the Act. Accordingly a driving licence and third party insurance were both required for its use on a public highway. The scooter required the passenger to stand on a . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v King Admn 13-Feb-2008
The defendant was charged after driving a ‘City Mantis Electric Scooter’. He was disqualified from driving. The prosecutor appealed against dismissal of the charges on the basis that the scooter was not of such a description as to require a licence . .
Cited – Coates, Regina v Misc 18-Jan-2011
(Barnsley Magistrates Court) The defendant owned a Segway, a two wheeled vehicle. He was charged with having driven it on a public footpath despite its being a motor vehicle. He denied that it was a motor vehicle ‘adapted or intended for use on the . .
Cited – Coates v Crown Prosecution Service Admn 29-Jul-2011
The defendant appealed by case stated against his conviction for driving a Segway scooter on a footpath. He denied that it was ‘a mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on roads.’
Held: The appeal failed. The district judge . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 19 January 2022; Ref: scu.431823

Exeter City Council, Regina (on The Application of) v Sandle: Admn 16 May 2011

Appeal by way of case stated from a decision of the Crown Court at Exeter on an appeal against the decision of the Exeter City Council (the appellant in this case) to decline to grant a Hackney Carriage Licence following the expiry of his existing licence.

Ciollins J
[2011] EWHC 1403 (Admin), [2011] LLR 480
Bailii

Road Traffic

Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.566252

Directeur General Des Finances Publiques v Mapfre Asistencia Compania Internacional De Seguros Y Reaseguros Sa (Fifth Chamber): ECJ 16 Jul 2015

ECJ Reference for a preliminary ruling – Taxation – Turnover tax – Scope – Exemption – Notion of ‘insurance transactions’ – Notion of ‘supply of services’ – Lump sum for a warranty covering breakdowns of a second-hand vehicle

[2015] EUECJ C-584/13, [2015] RTR 32, [2015] STC 2293, ECLI:EU:C:2015:488, [2015] BVC 42
Bailii
Citing:
Opinion – Directeur General Des Finances Publiques v Mapfre Asistencia Compania Internacional De Seguros Y Reaseguros Sa (Fifth Chamber) ECJ 4-Feb-2015
Opinion – Taxation – VAT – Scope – Exemptions – Concept of ‘insurance transactions’ – Concept of ‘supply of services’ – Lump sum paid for a warranty covering breakdowns of a second-hand motor vehicle . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, VAT, Road Traffic

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.565752

Directeur General Des Finances Publiques v Mapfre Asistencia Compania Internacional De Seguros Y Reaseguros Sa (Fifth Chamber): ECJ 4 Feb 2015

Opinion – Taxation – VAT – Scope – Exemptions – Concept of ‘insurance transactions’ – Concept of ‘supply of services’ – Lump sum paid for a warranty covering breakdowns of a second-hand motor vehicle

Szpunar AG
ECLI:EU:C:2015:55, [2015] EUECJ C-584/13 – O
Bailii
Cited by:
Opinion – Directeur General Des Finances Publiques v Mapfre Asistencia Compania Internacional De Seguros Y Reaseguros Sa (Fifth Chamber) ECJ 16-Jul-2015
ECJ Reference for a preliminary ruling – Taxation – Turnover tax – Scope – Exemption – Notion of ‘insurance transactions’ – Notion of ‘supply of services’ – Lump sum for a warranty covering breakdowns of a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, VAT, Road Traffic

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.565735

Newbury v Davis: QBD 1974

The owner of a vehicle agreed to lend it to someone else on condition that that person insured against third party risks. In the owner’s absence, that person drove the car on a road without insurance.
Held: The appeal against conviction was allowed: ‘the defendant did not permit Mr Jarvis to use the car. The defendant gave no permission to use it unless Mr Jarvis had a policy of insurance to cover its use, and he had none. Having no policy of insurance, he took the vehicle without the defendant’s permission. In other words, permission given subject to a condition which is unfulfilled is no permission at all. It may be that the difference is a small one between a case where the owner gives unconditional permission in the mistaken belief that the use is covered by insurance, or in the disappointed hope that it will be covered, and the case where the permission is given subject to a condition and that condition is not fulfilled. But to my mind there is a difference and it is one of legal substance. On this view of the case the defendant committed no offence.’

Lord Widgery CJ, MacKenna J
[1974] RTR 367
Road Traffic Act 1972
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Philip Owen Lloyd-Wolper v Robert Moore; National Insurance Guarantee Corporation Plc, Charles Moore CA 22-Jun-2004
The first defendant drove a car belonging to his father and insured by his father. The father consented to the driving but under a mistaken belief that his son was licensed. The claimant was injured by the defendant in a road traffic accident.
Distinguished – Baugh v Crago QBD 1975
The defendant believed that a driver was the holder of a driving licence and permitted him to use the vehicle, when the driver was not in fact such a holder. The prosecutor appealed his acquittal.
Held: Considering Newbury v Davis. The . .
Cited – Ferrymasters Ltd v Adams 1980
Employers were alleged to have caused or permitted an employee to drive a vehicle on the road while not holding a driving licence authorising him to do so. When the employee had entered the employment, the employers had ensured that he held a valid . .
Distinguished – Director of Public Prosecutions v Fisher QBD 1992
F was asked to lend L a car. F knew L was disqualified, but agreed provided L found an insured driver with a full valid driving licence. F did not know who L would ask or that he in fact asked R to drive; R was employed as delivery driver and the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Insurance

Leading Case

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.199925

Cameron v Hussain and Another: CA 23 May 2017

The court was asked: ‘i) whether it is possible to obtain a judgment in respect of a claim for damages against a defendant identified only by description (‘an unnamed defendant’), in the context of a motor claim against an unidentified hit-and-run driver, where the vehicle was identified and an insurance policy had been effected in respect of such vehicle in the name of either a non-existent person or someone who was not traceable;
ii) whether an insurer would be liable to satisfy any unsatisfied judgment against such an unnamed defendant under section 151 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (‘the 1988 Act’);
iii) whether the judges below were right to refuse to allow the claimant permission to amend her claim form and particulars of claim so as to substitute, for the named first defendant, a defendant identified only by the following description:
‘The person unknown driving vehicle registration number Y598 SPS who collided with vehicle registration number KG03 ZIZ on 26th May 2013.”

Gloster VP, Lloyd Jones LJJ, Sir Ross Cranston
[2017] WLR(D) 353, [2017] EWCA Civ 366, [2017] PIQR P16, [2018] 1 WLR 657, [2017] RTR 23, [2017] Lloyd’s Rep IR 487
WLRD, Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Cameron v Liverpool Victoria Insurance Co Ltd SC 20-Feb-2019
The Court was asked in what circumstances is it permissible to sue an unnamed defendant? The respondent was injured when her car collided with another. The care was insured but by a driver giving a false name. The car owner refused to identify him. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Insurance

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.584251

Tempest (t/a Cesspool Sid) v Commissioners of Customs and Excise: ChD 16 Mar 2000

The taxpayer owned and operated vehicles for discharging cesspool waste over agricultural land. He sought to reclaim the rebate entitlement for heavy oil. It was held that the four wheeled vehicles were off-the-road vehicles even if they would be driven on roads to and from the work sites. It was not an agricultural vehicle but was entitled as an off road vehicle if it was not otherwise entitled to a rebate, if it was designed and constructed mainly for use off the roads, and if it could not exceed 25 mph under its own power.

Times 16-Mar-2000
Hydrocarbon Oil Duty Act 1979
England and Wales

Road Traffic, Transport, Agriculture

Updated: 09 January 2022; Ref: scu.89763

Post Office v Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council: QBD 17 May 1994

A criminal penalty may still follow from the operator of a goods vehicle breaking the conditions of an access permit even though there was also a procedure to allow the revocation of permits for their misuse.

Times 17-May-1994
Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 8(1)
England and Wales

Road Traffic

Updated: 01 January 2022; Ref: scu.84815

Ram (Administrator of The Estate of Pearl Baboolal) v Motor and General Insurance Company Ltd: PC 18 May 2015

Trinidad and Tobago – There had been a road traffic accident leading to the loss of several lives. The insurer of the negligent party resisted paying out more in damages, saying that its liability was limited to $1m, and: ‘The principal issue in this appeal is whether an insurance company, before it pays third party claims under an insurance policy which has a contractual monetary limit on the aggregate of claims arising out of one event which equates with the statutory minimum cover, must (a) ascertain the total claims arising from the event and (b) where the total exceeds the limit, devise a scheme for the proportionate payment of the claims.’

Lord Mance, Lord Clarke, Lord Sumption, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hodge
[2015] UKPC 22
Bailii
Commonwealth

Insurance, Road Traffic

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.546864

Regina v Conway: CACD 28 Jul 1988

The defendant appealed against his conviction for reckless driving. He said the offence was committed out of necessity, since his passenger’s life was under threat.
Held: Necessity can only be a defence to a charge of reckless driving where the facts establish ‘duress of circumstances’ . . where the defendant was constrained by circumstances to drive as he did to avoid death or serious bodily harm to himself or some other person.

Woolf LJ, McCullough, Auld JJ
[1988] EWCA Crim 1, [1989] QB 290
Bailii
Road Traffic Act 1972 2
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Willer (Mark Edward) CACD 1986
The defendant appealed against his conviction for reckless driving (absolute discharge and ten penalty points). He drove his car slowly on the pavement in front of a shopping precinct. He said that this had seemed to him to be the only way in which . .
Cited – Regina v Denton CACD 1987
Necessity not a defence to reckless driving
The trial judge had refused to leave to the jury the defence of necessity, which the appellant sought to bring to a road traffic allegation.
Held: The appeal failed. Caulfield J referred to the authorities, and said: ‘In view of our ultimate . .
Cited – Regina v Lawrence (Stephen) HL 1981
The defendant had ridden a motor-cycle and hit a pedestrian. The court asked whether he had been reckless.
Held: The House understood recklessness as ‘a state of mind stopping short of deliberate intention, and going beyond mere inadvertence’ . .
Cited – Regina v Graham (Paul) CACD 18-Dec-1981
The defence of duress requires establishment of a reasonable belief. In judging the accused’s response the test is: ‘have the prosecution made the jury sure that a sober person of reasonable firmness, sharing the characteristics of the defendant, . .
Cited – Regina v Willer (Mark Edward) CACD 1986
The defendant appealed against his conviction for reckless driving (absolute discharge and ten penalty points). He drove his car slowly on the pavement in front of a shopping precinct. He said that this had seemed to him to be the only way in which . .
Cited – Regina v Howe etc HL 19-Feb-1986
The defendants appealed against their convictions for murder, saying that their defences of duress had been wrongly disallowed.
Held: Duress is not a defence available on a charge of murder. When a defence of duress is raised, the test is . .

Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Martin (Colin) CACD 29-Nov-1988
Defence of Necessity has a Place in Criminal Law
The defendant appealed against his conviction for driving whilst disqualified. He said he had felt obliged to drive his stepson to work because his stepson had overslept. His wife (who had suicidal tendencies) had been threatening suicide unless he . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Road Traffic

Leading Case

Updated: 11 December 2021; Ref: scu.262891

Planton v Director of Public Prosecutions: QBD 6 Jun 2001

The defendant was found by police sat in the driving seat of a car parked on an isthmus which would be submerged at high tide. The engine was running, and the car lights were on. He failed a breath test, but argued at trial that since the car had not been moving, he could not be said to have been driving. It was held that the question of whether he was still driving was one of fact and degree. In this case he could properly be said to have been driving. The appeal was allowed on other grounds. A distinction is to be made where premises are occupied by a large number of people – even if there has been a condition of entry for those people, the premises will be a ‘public place’.

Pill LJ, Silber LJ
Gazette 05-Jul-2001, Times 17-Aug-2001, [2002] RTR 9, [2001] EWHC 450 (Admin)
Bailii
Road Traffic Act 1988 5(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
Explained – Director of Public Prosecutins v Vivier QBD 1991
There had been a traffic accident in a large privately owned caravan park.
Held: Premises will be private where they are entered for reasons beneficial to the occupier. Referring to Harrison v Hill: ‘What Lord Sands, and indeed Lord Clyde, say . .

Cited by:
Cited – May v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 15-Apr-2005
Whether the car park where the driving took place was a ‘public place’ within the meaning of section 3.
Held: The appeal failed.
Laws LJ set out the following propositions as accurately summarising the relevant legal principles:
a. . .
Cited – Hughes, Regina v SC 31-Jul-2013
Uninsured Driver Not Guilty of Causing Death
The appellant though an uninsured driver, was driving without fault when another vehicle veered across the road. The other driver died from his injuries, and the appellant convicted of causing his death whilst uninsured. At trial he succeeded in . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Road Traffic

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.84759

Goodes v East Sussex County Council: HL 16 Jun 2000

The claimant was driving along a road. He skidded on ice, crashed and was severely injured. He claimed damages saying that the Highway authority had failed to ‘maintain’ the road.
Held: The statutory duty on a highway authority to keep a road in repair did not include an absolute duty to remove all ice. The 1959 Act was a consolidating Act and did not extend the responsibilities of highway authorities. ‘Maintenance and repair’ might sometimes include the removal of ice, but, and contrary to established authority, those words related to works to the surface of the roadway not to matter which might accumulate on it. The presence of ice and snow did not mean that the highway was out of repair. Removing ice and snow was a different kind of obligation which could be imposed on highway authorities only by Parliament. A highway authority’s duty under section 41(1) of the 1980 Act to maintain the highway was a duty to keep the fabric of the highway in such good repair as to render its physical condition safe for ordinary traffic to pass at all seasons of the year. It did not include a duty to prevent the formation of ice or remove an accumulation of snow on the road.
Lord Clyde said: ‘I have no difficulty in holding that Section 41 of the Highways Act, 1980 imposes an absolute duty on the highway authority. There is no hardship in so holding since the section has to be taken along with Section 58 which provides a defence that reasonable care has been taken by the authority. The scheme of the provisions is in its broad effect that the authority should be liable for damage caused by a failure to take reasonable care to maintain the highway, but the injured party is not required to prove the failure to take reasonable care. It is for the authority to prove that it has exercised all reasonable care. Such a reversal of the onus which would have been imposed on a plaintiff in an action for damages at common law is justifiable by the consideration that the plaintiff is not likely to know or be able to readily to ascertain in what respects the authority has failed in its duty. All that the plaintiff will know is that there is a defect in the road which has caused him injury and it is reasonable to impose on the authority the burden of explaining that they had exercised all reasonable care and should not be found liable. But the question in the case is precisely what is the meaning and scope of the absolute duty . . Maintenance certainly includes the work of repair and the taking of measures which will obviate the need to repair, to forestall the development of a defect in the road which will, if allowed to develop, require remedial action. The standard of maintenance is to be measured by considerations of safety. The obligation is to maintain the road so that it is safe for the passage of those entitled to use it. But the question still remains as to precisely what is the scope of that maintenance. It certainly requires that the highway be kept in a structurally sound condition. . . To use the words of Diplock, L.J. in Burnside -v- Emerson [1968] 1 WLR 1490 . . the obligation is to keep the highway ‘in such good repair as renders it reasonably passable for the ordinary traffic of the neighbourhood at all seasons of the year without danger caused by its physical condition.”

Lord Slynn of Hadley Lord Steyn Lord Hoffmann Lord Clyde Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough
Times 16-Jun-2000, Gazette 29-Jun-2000, [2000] UKHL 34, [2000] 3 All ER 603, [2000] 1 WLR 1356
House of Lords, House of Lords, House of Lords, Bailii
Highways Act 1980 41(1), Highways Act 1959
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Goodes v East Sussex County Council CA 7-Jan-1999
A council which failed to maintain a road ice free when they had decided on the need to prevent icing, and had had the opportunity to prevent it, but failed to take it, were in breach of statutory duty and liable for damages to driver of crashed . .
Cited – Regina v Heath QBD 1865
The highways board had sought and obtained an order against a householder who had built an extension part way over the highway. He had been orderd to pay costs but the taxed costs left a shortfall. The board now sought the difference from the . .
Cited – Cross v Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council CA 27-Jun-1997
The Council’s duty to maintain a highway is not absolute. It must take reasonable steps to prevent or clear ice forming on pathway. Lord Justice Evans analysed the application of Section 41 to a situation which arose from ice and snow. In any case . .
Cited – Haydon v Kent County Council CA 1978
Impacted snow and ice had built up on a steep, narrow, made-up footpath from Monday to Thursday during a short wintry spell. The plaintiff slipped and broke her ankle. The highway authority operated a system of priorities. Their resources were fully . .
Cited – Regina v Inhabitants of Greenhow 1876
A roadway had slipped down the hillside. At one point it was some 25ft below its former position. Though the material underneath was poor and unstable, it was repairable at a substantial cost to the inhabitants of the local borough.
Held: The . .
Cited – Farrell v Alexander HL 24-Jun-1976
The House considered the construction of a consolidation Act.
Held: It is ordinarily both unnecessary and undesirable to construe a consolidation Act by reference to statutory antecedents, but it is permissible to do so in a case where the . .
Cited – Burnside and Another v Emerson and Others CA 1968
The plaintiffs were injured in a road accident caused by flooding. They sued the executors of the deceased driver whose car spun out of control into the path of their own car, and also the highway authority, who had installed a proper system of . .
Cited – Guardians of the Poor of the Union of Amesbury v Justices of the Peace of the County of Wiltshire QBD 1883
The removal of snow which obstructed the main roads of the district of a highway authority was an ‘expense incurred in the maintenance’ of the highways for the purposes of obtaining a contribution from the county under section 13. . .
Cited – Cowley v Newmarket Local Board HL 1892
No action in tort lay against highway authorities for a failure to repair a highway. They were no more liable than were the local inhabitants.
Lord Halsbury said: ‘We are to consider the scope and purpose of the statute, and in particular for . .
Cited – Griffiths v Liverpool Corporation CA 1967
The Highways Act of 1961 had enlarged the duty of the highway authority and made it a general duty to take reasonable care to secure that the highway was not dangerous to traffic.
As to the effect of the 1961 Act, Diplock LJ said: ‘The duty at . .
Cited – Slater v Worthington’s Cash Store Ltd 1941
The defendant property owner was held to be liable for failing to remove snow from his roof, so that a minor avalanche injured a passer-by on the pavement. . .
Cited – Saunders v Holborn District Board of Works QBD 1895
Mr Saunders was injured when he slipped on an icy pavement, and claimed damages.
Held: A breach of the duty to remove snow did not give rise to a private law cause of action, any more than a breach of the duty to maintain the highway. Before . .
Cited – Acton District Council v London United Tramways KBD 1909
The court was asked whether the removal of four or five inches of snow from the tramway in Acton High Street was within the duty to maintain the highway imposed by section 28 of the Act of 1870.
Held: It was not. . .
Cited – Attorney-General v Scott 1905
A highway authority should ‘maintain the road according to an up-to-date standard.’ . .
Cited – Dublin United Tramways Co Ltd v Martin Fitzgerald HL 1903
The plaintiff sued when his horse slipped on tramlines in the road and fell. Stone setts or paving between the rails of a tramway in Grafton Street, Dublin, had become slippery owing to the grit or roughness of setts being worn away. In that state, . .
Cited – Latimer v AEC Limited HL 25-Jun-1953
The Appellant had recovered damages for injuries which he alleged had been the result of a failure on the part of the Respondents in their statutory duty to maintain one of the gangways in their works in an efficient state. He slipped on a factory . .

Cited by:
Cited – Roe v Sheffield City Council and others CA 17-Jan-2003
The claimant sought damages after his car was involved in an accident when a wheel struck a part of a tramway standing proud of the road surface. The defendant argued that they were excused liability by the 1988 Act, incorporating the effects of the . .
Cited – Gorringe v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council HL 1-Apr-2004
Statutory Duty Not Extended by Common Law
The claimant sought damages after a road accident. The driver came over the crest of a hill and hit a bus. The road was not marked with any warning as to the need to slow down.
Held: The claim failed. The duty could not be extended to include . .
Cited – Fiona Thompson v Hampshire County Council CA 27-Jul-2004
The claimant fell into a ditch by a path on the highway in the dark. She appealed a finding of no liability on the highway authority.
Held: The authority’s responsibility was as to the surface structures of the road way and not as to the . .
Cited – Jane Marianne Sandhar, John Stuart Murray v Department of Transport, Environment and the Regions CA 5-Nov-2004
The claimant’s husband died when his car skidded on hoar frost. She claimed the respondent was liable under the Act and at common law for failing to keep it safe.
Held: The respondent had not assumed a general responsibility to all road users . .
Cited – Department for Transport, Environment and the Regions v Mott Macdonald Ltd and others CA 27-Jul-2006
Claims arose from accidents caused by standing water on roadway surfaces after drains had not been cleared by the defendants over a long period of time. The Department appealed a decision giving it responsibility under a breach of statutory duty . .
Cited – Ali v The City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council CA 17-Nov-2010
The claimant appealed against rejection of her claim for damages after slipping on a footpath maintainable by the defendant after an accumulation of mud and debris. The claim appeared to be the first under section 130, and the highway authority . .
Cited – King Lifting Ltd v Oxfordshire County Council QBD 20-Jul-2016
A heavy crane had toppled from a road. The crane owners said that the highway authority were responsible for the poor condition of the road.
Held: The action failed. The evidence did not support the assertion that the accident arose from a . .
Cited – London Borough of Southwark and Another v Transport for London SC 5-Dec-2018
Question as to the meaning of the GLA Roads and Side Roads (Transfer of Property etc) Order 2000. When the highway was transferred was only the working surfaces, the road surface and the airspace and subsoil necessary for the operation, maintenance . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Road Traffic, Local Government

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.80914

Castle v Crown Prosecution Service: Admn 24 Jan 2014

The defendant appealed from his conviction for having driven in excess of a variable speed limit on the motorway. He said that the Order under which the speed limit had been imposed was irregular.

Pitchford LJ, Cranston
[2014] RTR 19, [2014] WLR(D) 33, (2014) 178 JP 285, [2014] EWHC 587 (Admin), [2014] 1 WLR 4279
Bailii, WLRD
Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 14, M62 Motorway (Junction 25 to Junction 30) (Temporary Restriction and Prohibition of Traffic) Order 2011, Road Traffic (Temporary Restrictions) Procedure Regulations 1992 3
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Carltona Ltd v Commissioners of Works CA 1943
Ministers May Act through Civil Servants
The plaintiffs owned a factory which was to be requisitioned. They sought a judicial review of the lawfulness of the order making the requisition, saying that the 1939 Regulations had been implemented not by the Minister as required, but by an . .
Cited – Lewisham Borough Council v Roberts CA 1949
The council sought to exercise its powers under the Act to take possession of part of the defendant’s property.
Held: Denning LJ said: ‘It is necessary to consider the nature of the power to requisition land. It is only a power to take . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Oladehinde HL 18-Oct-1990
A decision at Senior Executive Officer level was accepted as appropriate in a deportation case. There was an express form of delegation, and acts of the immigration officers required to be regarded as the acts of the Home Secretary.
Lord . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Social Security ex parte Sherwin (a Patient By Her Next Friend Sherwin) Admn 16-Feb-1996
An official in the Benefits Agency, part of the Department of Health and Social Security, suspended an income support/severe disability premium payable to the appellant. The court was asked whether the decision of the Agency, made under the . .

Cited by:
Cited – Bourgass and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 29-Jul-2015
The Court considered the procedures when a prisoner is kept in solitary confinement, otherwise described as ‘segregation’ or ‘removal from association’, and principally whether decisions to keep the appellants in segregation for substantial periods . .
Cited – Bourgass and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 29-Jul-2015
The Court considered the procedures when a prisoner is kept in solitary confinement, otherwise described as ‘segregation’ or ‘removal from association’, and principally whether decisions to keep the appellants in segregation for substantial periods . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Constitutional

Updated: 01 December 2021; Ref: scu.522554

Albert v Motor Insurers Bureau: HL 1971

The plaintiff suffered injury as a passenger when getting a lift to work from a co-worker. The driver was uninsured and had given lift to several co-workers over a period of time, mking a charge.
Held: The lift arrangement was in the nature of a contract, and therefore under the MIB scheme, the MIB were obliged to pay compensation.
Viscount Dilhorne said: ‘To constitute carriage for hire or reward, it is not, of course, necessary that payment is made before the journey. If there is an arrangement that payment will be made for that it matters not when the payment is in fact made.’

Viscount Dilhorne
[1971] 3 WLR 291
England and Wales

Road Traffic, Insurance, Personal Injury, Contract

Updated: 30 November 2021; Ref: scu.565344

Powlesland v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 9 Dec 2013

The defendant apealed against his conviction for having taken part in a public procession, a a Critical Mass Cycle Ride, knowingly in breach of conditions attached to it by the Police. The defendant had argued that the ride was not a procession.
Held: The appeal failed. ‘The power to give directions is to be used, not just when the organisers of a procession have been co-operative enough to tell the police in advance of their intentions as to a specific route, but and perhaps more importantly when they have not done so. It would be an absurd interpretation if a direction, aimed at preventing serious disruption, could not be given unless the police knew as a matter of objectively provable fact that the procession would follow a specific route from A to B via particular roads, despite disruptive organisers masking their intentions. It cannot be that, until the police know the specific route, they cannot use s12 to prevent the use of a reasonably possible but seriously disruptive route. The power to give directions would not be useable when most needed; and it could always be objected that the police did not know what the route was to be, but had merely believed, however reasonably, that it could take a disruptive route.’

Goldring LJ, Ouseley J
[2013] EWHC 3846 (Admin), (2014) 178 JP 67, [2014] 1 WLR 2984, [2014] WLR(D) 139
Bailii, WLRD
Public Order Act 1986 12(5)
Citing:
Cited – Kay v Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis HL 26-Nov-2008
The claimant had been involved in a monthly cycle ride through central London which had continued for many years. The ride took place without any central organisation and without any route being pre-planned. They objected to being required to apply . .
Cited – Kay v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis Admn 27-Jun-2006
For many years and in many large cities, once a month, cyclists had gathered en masse to cycle through the city in a ‘Critical Mass’ demonstration. There was no central organisation. Clarification was sought as to whether the consent of the police . .
Cited – Flockhart v Robinson 1950
A challenge was made to the organising of a procession. Its route was determined by Mr Flockhart as he went along.
Held: For the purposes of section 3(4) of the 1936 Act, a procession ‘is a body of persons moving along a route’ and that, by . .
Cited – Jukes and Others v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 16-Jan-2013
Two of those participating in a march demonstrating against cuts in the education budget, left that march to join the Occupy Movement’s demonstration in Trafalgar Square against the excesses of capitalism. They were, convicted at Westminster . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Road Traffic, Police

Updated: 28 November 2021; Ref: scu.519993

Coles and Others v Hetherton and Others: CA 20 Dec 2013

The claimants’ insurers disputed arrangements by the defendants’ insurers in motor accident claims which, they said artificially inflated the costs of repairs to the profit of the defendants’ insurers.

Moore-Bick, Aikens, Vos LJJ
[2013] EWCA Civ 1704
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Coles and Others v Hetherton and Others ComC 22-Sep-2011
Parties challenged the method used by the Royal and Sun Alliance insurance to calculate the cost of repairs to motor vehicles damaged in accidents. After conflicting decisions in County Courts, the issue was brought before the Commercial Court.
Appeal from – Coles and Others v Hetherton and Others ComC 15-Jun-2012
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages, Road Traffic

Updated: 28 November 2021; Ref: scu.519317

Regina v Camden London Borough Council Ex Parte Cran and Others: QBD 25 Jan 1995

A designation of an area as a controlled parking area was vitiated by the failure of the Local Authority to consult locally. The court expanded on the principles for consultation set out in Gunning: ‘What kind and amount of consultation is required in a particular case must depend on the circumstances. A few general principles can however, be stated.
‘The process of consultation must be effective; looked at as a whole, it must be fair. This requires that: consultation must take place while the proposals are still at a formative stage; those consulted must be provided with information which is accurate and sufficient to enable them to make a meaningful response; they must be given adequate time in which to do so; there must be adequate time for their responses to be considered; the consulting party must consider responses with a receptive mind and a conscientious manner when reaching its decision.’

McCullough J
Times 25-Jan-1995, Ind Summary 20-Mar-1995, (1996) 94 LGR 8
European Convention on Human Rights 9
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Brent London Borough Council ex parte Gunning 1985
The demands of fair consultation procedures will vary from case to case and will depend on the factors involved. The requirements are: ‘First, that consultation must be at a time when proposals are still at a formative stage. Second, that the . .

Cited by:
Cited – Regina (on the Application of Wainwright) v Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council CA 20-Dec-2001
A local authority was under a statutory duty to consult before undertaking road improvements. Because of the chaotic mail administration systems, the consultation had been ruled unlawful. The council appealed.
Held: The council had in fact . .
Cited – Partingdale Lane Residents’ Association, Regina (on the Application of) v Barnet London Borough Council Admn 2-Apr-2003
Complaint was made that a Councillor had closed his mind to any arguments and had predetermined the decision on a proposed road re-opening order.
Held: The application was allowed. Councillor Coleman had himself gone beyond a legitimate . .
Cited – X, Regina (on the Application of) v Y School Admn 21-Feb-2007
The court was asked whether a school was entitled to refuse to allow a Muslim girl to wear the niqab full face veil at school. The reasons were ‘first educational factors resulting from a teacher being unable to see the face of the girl with a . .
Cited – Watkins-Singh, Regina (on the Application of) v The Governing Body of Aberdare Girls’ High School and Another Admn 29-Jul-2008
Miss Singh challenged her school’s policy which operated to prevent her wearing while at school a steel bangle, a Kara. She said this was part of her religion as a Sikh.
Held: Earlier comparable applications had been made under human rights . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Local Government

Updated: 17 November 2021; Ref: scu.86281

Ashton v Turner: QBD 1981

The plaintiff sought damages after being injured as a passenger in a car. He and the driver had both just been involved in a burglary, and the driver, who had taken alcohol was attempting to escape. The driver was driving very dangerously in order to avoid their arrest after two taxi drivers had tried to block the car.
Held: The claim failed. As a matter of public policy the law would not recognise a duty of care owed by one participant in a crime to another: ‘a duty of care did not exist between the first defendant and the plaintiff during the course of the burglary and during the course of the subsequent flight in the get-away car.’
He held in the alternative that, even if a duty of care was owed, the Claimant had willingly accepted as his the risk of negligence and injury resulting from it.

Ewbank J
[1981] QB 137, [1980] 3 All ER 870
Road Traffic Act 1972 148(3)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Marshall v Osmond CA 1983
The plaintiff was passenger in a stolen car seeking to escape the police as they chased. The car was stopped, the plaintiff got out of the car, and was hit by a police car. He sought damages.
Held: His appeal against dismissal of his claim was . .
Distinguished – Kirkham v Anderton, The Chief Constable of the Greater Manchester police CA 20-Dec-1989
The claimant’s husband hanged himself in Risley Remand Centre after the police had failed to warn the prison authorities that he was (as the police knew) a suicide risk. He was suffering from clinical depression and had previously attempted suicide . .
Dictum Disapproved – Pitts v The Personal Representatives of Mark James Hunt (Deceased) and Another CA 1990
The plaintiff and a friend had spent the evening drinking at a disco before setting off on the friend’s motorcycle. The plaintiff was aware that the motorcyclist was neither licensed to ride a motorcycle nor insured. During the journey, the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Negligence

Updated: 12 November 2021; Ref: scu.188781

Griffiths v Liverpool Corporation: CA 1967

The Highways Act of 1961 had enlarged the duty of the highway authority and made it a general duty to take reasonable care to secure that the highway was not dangerous to traffic.
As to the effect of the 1961 Act, Diplock LJ said: ‘The duty at common law to maintain, which includes a duty to repair a highway, was not based in negligence but in nuisance. It was an absolute duty to maintain, not merely a duty to take reasonable care to maintain, and the statutory duty which replaced it was also absolute.’ and ‘The defendants had a statutory duty to maintain the highway and the question of reasonable care has no relevance.’
DiplocK LJ continued: ‘Subsection (2) does not, in my opinion, make proof of lack of reasonable care on the part of a highway authority a necessary element in the cause of action of a plaintiff who has been injured by a danger on a highway. What it does is to enable the highway authority to rely upon the fact that it has taken reasonable care as a defence — the onus of establishing this resting upon it. A convenient way of expressing the effect of the subsection is that it does not qualify the legal character of the duty imposed by subsection (1) but provides the highway authority with a statutory excuse for not performing it.
But however this may be there are two crucial differences between a liability in negligence and the statutory liability of a highway authority under this section. To succeed in an action for negligence the plaintiff must prove, inter alia, (1) that the defendant has been guilty of lack of reasonable care and (2) that such lack of reasonable care was the cause of the injury to him. In an action under the statute against a highway authority for injury sustained from a danger on a highway the plaintiff need prove neither of these things in order to succeed. Unless the highway authority proves that it did take reasonable care the statutory defence under subsection (2) is not available to it at all. Nor is it a defence for the highway authority to show that even had it taken all reasonable care this might not have prevented the damage which caused the injury. It may be that if the highway authority could show that no amount of reasonable care on its part could have prevented the danger the common law defence of inevitable accident would be available to it; but that is not relied on in the present case and it is not necessary for us to express a final conclusion upon it.’

Diplock LJ, Sellers LJ
[1967] 1 QB 374
Highways Act 1961 58(2)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Inhabitants of High Halden 1859
highhalden1859
The court considered the liability of the parish for injury arising from a failure to repair the road. The road was ‘an old soft road formed of Weald of Kent clay, and had never been repaired with hard substances’. The evidence was that in wet . .

Cited by:
Cited – Goodes v East Sussex County Council HL 16-Jun-2000
The claimant was driving along a road. He skidded on ice, crashed and was severely injured. He claimed damages saying that the Highway authority had failed to ‘maintain’ the road.
Held: The statutory duty on a highway authority to keep a road . .
Cited – Jones v Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council CA 15-Jul-2008
The claimant, a fireman, sought damages for injuries suffered when he was injured answering a call out. He fell into a depressed area by the road side as he was pulling away a burning wooden pallet.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. The court . .
Cited – Rance v Essex County Council CA 21-Feb-1997
Appeal against refusal of claim against highway authority. The appellant was injured when her car crashed. A high volume of heavy goods vehicles had been using a local road, damaging the road and verges. Though the road was wide enough for her car . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Road Traffic

Leading Case

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.244696

Mirvahedy v Henley and another: HL 20 Mar 2003

The defendants’ horses escaped from the field, and were involved in an accident with the claimant’s car.
Held: The defendants were liable under section 2(2). To bolt was a characteristic of horses which was normal ‘in the particular circumstances’, these being some sort of fright or other external stimulus. Section 2 places all animals into one of two categories by their species. Animals either belong to a dangerous species, or they do not. A keeper of an animal is liable for damage caused by his animal dependant upon the category. A dangerous species must meet two requirements, a) that it is not commonly domesticated here and b) that fully grown animals ‘normally have such characteristics that they are likely, unless restrained, to cause severe damage or that any damage they may cause is likely to be severe’.
Lord Nicholls: ‘Take a large and heavy domestic animal such as a mature cow. There is a real risk that if a cow happens to stumble and fall onto someone, any damage suffered will be severe. This would satisfy requirement (a). . . But a cow’s dangerousness in this regard may not fall within requirement (b). This dangerousness is due to a characteristic normally found in all cows at all times. The dangerousness results from their very size and weight. It is not due to a characteristic not normally found in cows ‘except at particular times or in particular circumstances.”

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Nicholls
Times 24-Mar-2003, [2003] UKHL 16, Gazette 15-May-2003, [2003] 2 AC 491, [2003] RTR 26, [2003] PIQR P25, [2003] NPC 38, [2003] 2 WLR 882, [2003] 2 All ER 401
House of Lords, Bailii
Animals Act 1971 2 6(2) 11
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Mirvahedy v Henley and Henley CA 21-Nov-2001
Horses with no abnormal characteristics were panicked, ran out and collided with a car. The car driver sought damages.
Held: The question was not whether the animals betrayed abnormal characteristics of which the owners should have been aware, . .
Cited – Breeden v Lampard CA 21-Mar-1985
A riding accident occurred at a cubbing meet. The plaintiff’s leg was injured when the defendant’s horse kicked out. A claim was advanced under section 2. This horse, like any horse, was liable to kick out when approached too closely, or too . .
Cited – Cummings v Grainger CA 1977
An untrained Alsatian dog was turned loose in a scrap-yard to deter intruders. The dog seriously injured the plaintiff who had entered the yard.
Held: The requirements of section 2(2) were satisfied but the defendant was entitled to rely upon . .

Cited by:
Cited – Clark v Bowlt CA 26-Jun-2006
A claim was made for personal injury suffered riding a horse.
Held: The court doubted whether a propensity occasionally to move otherwise than as directed can be described as a characteristic of a horse, for the purposes of s. 2(2)(b), but, if . .
Cited – Welsh v Stokes and Another CA 27-Jul-2007
The claimant sued a riding stables after she was badly injured on being thrown from the horse provided. Her claim in negligence failed, but she succeeded under strict liabiilty under the 1971 Act, after the judge relied upon hearsay evidence.
Cited – Freeman v Higher Park Farm CA 30-Oct-2008
The claimant fell from a horse hired to her by the defendant. She claimed for her injuries, and appealed rejection of her claim in strict liability under the 1971 Act. The horse was known to be lively and occasionally to buck, but the claimant was a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Animals, Road Traffic, Personal Injury

Leading Case

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.179981

Pryor v Greater Manchester Police: CA 30 Jun 2011

The claimant had purchased a car, but not yet received confirmation of its registration in his name. After verifying his friend’s insurance he lent the car to him. The friend was stopped by officers, the non-registrations noted and the car was impounded and destroyed. He appealed against rejection of his claim.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The conditions for seizure had not been met. It was only after a relevant certificate of insurance has not been provided that it can be asked whether the officer had reasonable grounds for suspecting an offence under section 143. The certificate satisfied the requirement as ‘the relevant certificate of insurance’, and doubts later acquired did not enlarge the powers under section 165.

Ward, Stanley Burnton, Black LJJ
[2011] EWCA Civ 749, [2011] RTR 33, (2011) 175 JP 492
Bailii
Road Traffic Act 1988 143 165A
England and Wales

Road Traffic, Police

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.441394